Anonymous and its questionable activities

One is simply denying customers while the other is destroying property.



The anonymous attacks relied mainly on supports who donated their computers for the cause, not massive bot nets.

I would also like to point out that anonymous also took down government websites in support of protesters in multiple nations.

I would still have a problem with the latter, because DDoS attacks are not localized. They take down large sections of infrastructure (most of which is typically privately owned) at the attack point.

Likewise, if crowds block entry to private property then I don't think this is justified.

 

[Elk]

I don't see the difference in causing physical damage and blocking business. Is there a difference between breaking a $500 computer or making $500 in profitable customers go else where?

 

[SuF]

I would still have a problem with the latter, because DDoS attacks are not localized. They take down large sections of infrastructure (most of which is typically privately owned) at the attack point.

Likewise, if crowds block entry to private property then I don't think this is justified.

That is a very fair point. However, is there really any other choice for these people that will allow them to get their word out? Many of the participants are minors who would never be able to voice their opinions otherwise. The attacks may cause collateral damage but have been very effective in putting the ideas and issues of the group into the eyes of the international community. There was a successful outcome for the group, even if the means were not moral or legal.

 

[SuF]

I don't see the difference in causing physical damage and blocking business. Is there a difference between breaking a $500 computer or making $500 in profitable customers go else where?

The accuracy of that statement depends on the size of the business and the loyalty of the customers. Damage is indeed damage. Protests are not always moral. What really matters is their effectiveness.